coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1974. He is currently serving a prison sentence.
6.  On 9 November 2004 the Opole Regional Court convicted the applicant of manslaughter and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The prosecution appealed.
7.  On 8 December 2004 J.G., the lawyer assigned to represent the applicant under the legal‑aid scheme, also submitted an appeal against the first-instance judgment, arguing that the sentence was too severe. In the same pleadings J.G. also requested the court to dispense him from his obligation to represent the applicant and to appoint another lawyer to the case.
8.  In a letter of the same date he informed the applicant that, in his view, the appeal offered no reasonable prospects of success. He also stated that under no circumstances would he represent him for the purposes of cassation proceedings.
9.  On 16 December 2004 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. In the proceedings before the appellate court the applicant was represented by another legal‑aid lawyer, D.K.
10.  On 4 March 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s request for the grant of legal aid and assigned J.G. to represent him for the purposes of cassation proceedings.
11.  On 15 March 2005 the second-instance judgment with the written statement of reasons was served on both the applicant and his lawyer.
12.  By a letter of 16 March 2005 the lawyer requested the court to be exempted from the obligation to represent the applicant. He submitted that he had already informed the applicant that he would prepare an appeal against the first‑instance judgment on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the sentence was disproportionate. He had also informed him that, in his view, this appeal offered no reasonable prospects of success. In the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal his opinion proved justified. He also stated that he had warned the applicant that under no circumstances would he represent him for the purposes of cassation proceedings. In his view, there were no grounds on which to accept that any grounds for a cassation appeal obtained in the case. This was so because in the appeal against the first-instance judgment he had relied only on the disproportionate nature of the sentence, which could not be argued before the Supreme Court.
13.  The Wrocław Court of Appeal informed the applicant of this refusal by a letter dated 22 March 2005. It was further stated that in these circumstances the only course of action left to the applicant was to request the Ombudsman to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf. This letter was served on the applicant on 29 March 2005.
8.  The applicants are Romanian nationals of Roma origin who, during the events which gave rise to the present case, lived in the village of Bolintin Deal, Giurgiu County.
9.  Following the killing, on the night of 6/7 April 1991, of a non-Roma from Bolintin-Deal by a Roma villager, a crowd of more than two thousand non‑Roma inhabitants from the same village and from the neighbouring village, together with the priest and the mayor, burned and otherwise destroyed the applicants’ houses and their contents.
As a consequence, the entire Roma community fled their houses and were left homeless for a month.
10.  When, on 7 May 1991 the evacuated Roma villagers tried to negotiate their return, the non‑Roma community gathered together again and burned four more houses belonging to Roma. The applicants, who were helped by the police to flee the village in a windowless military van, lost all their belongings while being evacuated. The attacks against the applicants continued on the following days and the Roma inhabitants were denied access to the village, the orthodox church and the cemetery.
11.  It appears that the applicants have not returned to Bolintin Deal. They have had to change their addresses several times and now have no legal documents attesting their actual residence. Some of them have been contacted by the mayor of Bolintin Deal with offers to purchase their land and, in desperate need of money, have accepted the offers.
12.  In April 1991 the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the Giurgiu County Prosecutor’s Office. An investigation was started and the applicants joined the proceedings as civil parties, seeking compensation for their destroyed houses and belongings.
13.  On 17 October 1996 the criminal trial commenced, in conjunction with a civil action for damages. The Bucharest District Court gave its judgment on 18 May 1998. It convicted thirteen individuals of unlawful entry into a person’s home and destruction of property and gave them each a three to six months’ suspended prison sentence.
The District Court awarded the applicants compensation for their houses; it based its ruling on an expert report of 1994 and rejected the applicants’ request to take the inflation rate into account. It then halved the amount of the compensation, on the ground of the mitigating circumstances of provocation. The District Court did not afford any redress for the movable property, as it considered that its existence, and subsequent destruction during the incidents, had not been proven.
14.  The appeals lodged by the applicants were rejected and the judgment upheld, first by the Bucharest County Court on 4 January 1999 and then by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in a final decision of 27 May 1999.
15.  The applicants were referred to as “gypsies” (in Romanian “ţigani”) on several occasions in the court decisions above.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Gelendzhik, in the Krasnodar Region.
5.  The applicant's husband was a staff member of the Oceanology Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a State-owned institution. In 1977 he was placed on a waiting list to receive housing. In August 1998 he was on the top of the list. In order to obtain a larger flat from the Institute, it was agreed that the applicant would transfer title to her own flat to the Institute. On 4 December 1998 the applicant and the Institute signed an exchange agreement. The Institute subsequently discovered that the applicant had sold her old flat in March 1998.
6.  On an unspecified date, having become aware of the above transactions, the Gelendzhik town prosecutor, acting on behalf of the Institute and the person who had been allocated the applicant's flat (a Mr M), brought proceedings against the applicant and her husband to have the exchange agreement invalidated and to evict the applicant's family from the flat granted to her husband. The applicant's husband brought a counter-claim seeking the acknowledgement of his right to the new flat received from the Institute.
7.  On 9 March 2000 the Gelendzhik Town Court of the Krasnodar Region granted the public prosecutor's claim. On 25 April 2000 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered a re-examination of the case by the first-instance court.
8.  The first instance heard the prosecutor, the applicant, her husband and their counsel. The Oceanology Institute's and Mr M's representatives were also present and made submissions to the court. On 1 June 2001 the Town Court granted the public prosecutor's claim. On 18 June 2001 the Town Court dismissed the counter-claim in a separate judgment. The applicant appealed. On 16 August 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgments of 1 and 18 June 2001. The prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing. There is no written proof that the applicant received any summons for the appeal hearing scheduled for 16 August 2001.
9.  On 30 January 2003 the Supreme Court refused to initiate supervisory proceedings in respect of the above judgments. It rejected, inter alia, the applicant's complaint about non-notification of the appeal hearing, noting that the parties had been apprised of it.
10.  In the meantime, on 4 February 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement in relation to the same facts. On 19 December 2000 the case was discontinued for lack of a corpus delicti. On 15 August 2006 the above decision was quashed and the preliminary investigation was resumed. Its outcome remains unclear.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in St Petersburg.
5.  On 2 August 1999 the applicant lodged an action against two private companies seeking compensation for damage caused to his car. On the same day the Sestroretskiy District Court of St. Petersburg adjourned the examination of the action until 9 February 2000 and ordered that the applicant should pay a court fee in instalments.
6.  On 23 May 2000 the Sestroretskiy District Court once again adjourned the examination of the action, requesting the applicant to pay an additional court fee because he had amended his claims on 9 February 2000. The applicant paid the fee in full on 30 June 2000.
7.  No hearings were fixed between September 2000 and 17 October 2000 because the case file had been sent to the St. Petersburg City Court and the composition of the District Court examining the applicant’s case had been changed.
8.  The hearing fixed for 17 October 2002 was adjourned because the case file had been sent to the St. Petersburg City Prosecutor’s office. The following hearing was listed for 11 March 2003.
9.  According to the Government, hearings fixed between 11 March 2003 and 1 November 2004 were postponed because the companies’ representatives defaulted or asked for adjournments, and because the presiding judge was ill or involved in other unrelated proceedings.
10.  On 1 November 2004 the Sestroretskiy District Court dismissed the action. On the same day the applicant lodged a short version of the statement of appeal against the judgment of 1 November 2004.
11.  On 15 November 2004 the applicant complained to the president of the Sestroretskiy District Court that he had not been served with the full text of the judgment of 1 November 2004 and that he had not been allowed to study the case file to prepare his appeal statement.
12.  On 15 December 2004 the Sestroretskiy District Court adjourned the appeal proceedings because the applicant had not submitted the “reasoned” appeal statement and a certificate showing that he had paid the court fee.
13.  The applicant complained about the decision of 15 December 2004 before the St. Petersburg City Court.
14.  On 22 April 2005 the St. Petersburg City Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal, noting that he had failed to comply with the District Court’s decision of 15 December 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kirovograd, Ukraine.
5.  On 16 November 2001, 6 March and 13 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Kirovograd awarded the applicant 4,912.67 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1], UAH 4,967.66[2] and UAH 6,025.10[3], respectively, in salary arrears and other payments due to her by her former employer, the Municipal Company “Garantiya” (комунальне підприємство «Гарантія») owned and controlled by the city council.
6.  All these judgments became final and the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them. According to the Government, in the course of these proceedings the total amount of UAH 3,190.33 was paid to the applicant. According to the applicant, she had received UAH 2,366.02 only.
7.  Being dissatisfied with the lengthy non-enforcement of these judgments, the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the State Bailiffs’ Service, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 28 March 2003 the court rejected her claim for pecuniary damage but awarded her UAH 500[4] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 7 August 2003 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and the latter became final. Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this judgment in cassation before the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
8.  According to the Government, the applicant did not request the State Bailiffs’ Service to institute enforcement proceedings under the judgment of 28 March 2003. The applicant disagreed, providing in support the letter of the State Bailiffs’ Service of 7 June 2006 in which the latter informed her that the judgment of 28 March 2003 had not been enforced due to its lack of funds.
9.  The applicant also complained to various State authorities but to no avail.
10.  On 28 December 2004 the Kirovograd Commercial Court instituted liquidation proceedings against the debtor company.
11.  In this regard on 24 and 28 March 2005 the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings against the debtor company and transferred the applicant’s writs of enforcement to the liquidation commission for further processing. The liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending.
12.  All the above-mentioned judgments given in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Pervomaysk, Mykolayiv region, Ukraine.
6.  On 19 May 2003, after several rounds of court proceedings, the Pervomaysk District Court of Mykolayiv Region ordered the Pervomaysk Town Centre of Municipal Companies (Комбінат комунальних підприємств міста Первомайська), a municipal entity owned by the local council, to pay the applicant the total amount of 7,498.94 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in damage caused to his apartment and other property.
7.  This judgment was not appealed against and became final. On 23 November 2003 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings. According to the Government, in the course of these proceedings the amount of UAH 1,500 had been transferred to the bank account indicated by the applicant. However, because the bank details provided by the applicant were inaccurate that sum was withdrawn. The applicant, in turn, denied that any sum had ever been paid into his bank account. He provided the relevant bank statement to support his claim.
8.  On 19 May 2004 the local council decided to liquidate the debtor entity and the liquidation proceedings were initiated. In this respect, on 1 June 2004 the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ of enforcement to the liquidation commission for further processing. The liquidation proceedings apparently are still pending.
9.  The applicant complained to various State authorities about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour but to no avail.
10.  The judgment of 19 May 2003 remains unenforced.
11.  The applicant was born in 1952 and currently resides in the village of Dovzhok, Khmelnytsky region, Ukraine.
12.  On 13 April 2000 the local city council decided to liquidate the applicant’s employer, the Kamyanets-Podilsky Maintenance Municipal Company (Кам’янець-Подільське ремонтно-виробниче комунальне підприємство) owned by this council, and liquidation proceedings were initiated. Subsequently the applicant resigned.
13.  On 11 July 2001 the Kamyanets-Podilsky City Court awarded the applicant UAH 3,385.42[2] in salary arrears and other payments due to him by his former employer.
14.  In so far as this judgment became final, on 15 October 2001 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it. In the course of these proceedings the total amount of UAH 2,195 was paid to the applicant.
15.  On 17 August 2003 the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ of enforcement to the liquidation commission for further processing. The liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending.
16.  On 10 April 2003 the applicant requested the local Prosecutor’s Office to institute criminal proceedings against L. and M., the head of the liquidation commission of the debtor company and the bailiff respectively, for lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour. Apparently the proceedings are still pending.
17.  The applicant also complained to various State authorities but to no avail.
18.  The judgment of 11 July 2001 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kamyanets-Podilsky, Khmelnytsky region, Ukraine.
5.  On 20 August 2002 the local city council decided to put the applicant’s employer, Pharmacy No. 130 (комунальне підприємство Аптека № 130), a municipal enterprise owned and controlled by this council, into liquidation, and the liquidation proceedings were initiated.
6.  On 1 June 2004 the Kamyanets-Podilsky City Court awarded the applicant 1,355.41 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments due to her from Pharmacy No. 130.
7.  This judgment became final and on 2 September 2004 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
8.  According to the Government, on 22 September 2004 the State Bailiffs’ Service, having terminated the enforcement proceedings, returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant on 22 September 2004. According to the Government, the applicant had been instructed to transfer the writ to the liquidation commission for further processing but had failed to do so.
9.  On 16 December 2004 the debtor enterprise was removed from the relevant companies’ register.
10.  The judgment of 1 June 2004 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Košice.
5.  In 1997 the applicant’s parents, by way of a donation contract, transferred to the applicant their ownership title to a garage.
6.  On 13 March 2002 the applicant was sued by her parents. They asked the Košice I District Court to order the applicant to return the above gift.
7.  The applicant’s request for an interim measure was dismissed on 10 December 2002.
8.  Several hearings took place between 19 February 2003 and 29 July 2005.
9.  On 3 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and her right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. It held that the case was not complex and the applicant’s conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The period of inactivity totalling one year was imputable to the District Court.
10.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 10,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of 256 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
11.  A hearing took place on 4 November 2005. Another hearing, scheduled for 2 February 2006, was adjourned.
12.  On 3 July 2006 the District Court dismissed the action. The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 October 2006 and became final and enforceable on 26 October 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Tarnów.
5. On 9 August 1968 the Hrubieszów District National Council took over the applicant’s farm, regarding it as abandoned property. On 16 January 1969 the Lublin Regional National Council upheld that decision.
6. On 12 December 1994 the applicant requested the Minister of Agriculture to declare the latter decision null and void.
7. On 29 August 1997 the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics dismissed the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed. On 9 January 1998 the Minister upheld his former decision.
8. On 8 September 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both decisions of the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics and remitted the case for re-examination.
9. On 4 April 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court requesting that a fine be imposed on the Minister for failure to enforce the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 8 September 1999. He also complained about the overall length of the proceedings. On 9 May 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court discontinued these proceedings since the applicant had withdrawn his complaints as the Minister had in the meantime issued the decision in question (see paragraph 12 below).
10. The Minister began to examine the case in June 2000. On 16 June 2000 he stayed the proceedings until certain documents concerning ownership of the applicant’s farm were submitted by the Lublin Governor’s Office. The requested documents were submitted to the Minister on 23 November 2000.
11. On 14 March 2001 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics alleging inactivity on his part.
12. On 26 April 2001 the Minister again dismissed the applicant’s request to declare the decision null and void. On 8 May 2001 the applicant appealed, requesting a re-examination of his case.
13. On 21 November 2001 the applicant again lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court alleging inactivity on the part of the Minister. The proceedings were discontinued on 14 March 2002 since the applicant had withdrawn his complaint as the Minister had issued the decision in question (see paragraph 14 below).
14. On 8 February 2002 the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics upheld his decision of 2001.
15. On 21 January 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Minister’s decisions given in 2001 and 2002.
16. On 27 January 2004 the Minister dismissed the applicant’s request of 1994 for the third time. On 9 February 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision.
17. The proceedings are currently pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 3 April 2002 the applicant lodged an action against her husband with the Bratislava IV District Court, seeking a judicial determination of their parental rights and obligations in respect of their child.
6.  On 30 January 2003 the District Court delivered an interim measure in the applicant’s favour.
7.  On 20 March 2003 the District Court gave the applicant custody of the child. It did not order the defendant to pay any maintenance. On 13 November 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the judgment in its part concerning maintenance and remitted the case to the District Court. The view was expressed that the court of first instance had not sufficiently established the relevant facts. The Regional Court ordered the District Court to proceed along the lines specified.
8.  In a judgment of 21 September 2004 the District Court determined the issue. On 23 September 2005 the Regional Court again quashed the relevant part of the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court. It found that the District Court had not sufficiently established the relevant facts and explained to the latter how the case should be dealt with.
9.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant withdrew the action as she had reached an out-of-court settlement with the defendant.
10.  The District Court thus discontinued the proceedings on 17 January 2006. The decision became final on 17 February 2006.
11.  Meanwhile, on 10 January 2006, the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court established that the case was not complex and that no delays could be imputed to the applicant. It noted that the District Court had acted ineffectively. In view of the subject-matter of the proceedings, their overall duration had been excessive. The Constitutional Court concluded that the finding of a violation represented in itself sufficient just satisfaction in the circumstances of the case, especially as the applicant had withdrawn the action. It did not order the District Court to proceed with the case on the ground that the applicant had withdrawn the action. It ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.